The video included to the side of the article shows the author talking to a WSJ reporter about the problem, never addressing the concerns of men, except to mention that they are confused about their roles in the new economy and society where they are seen as expendable family members. The article and interview seemed geared toward fixing the problem for women, not for men, who apparently have no voice in the matter. No wonder they turn to other more satisfying avenues such as video games, music, hobbies and partying --at least there they can find a way of life that fulfills some of their needs.

27 Comments:

The article and interview seemed geared toward fixing the problem for women

Did Kay Hymowitz interview thousands of women, single women, single women that are desperate to get married and have babies? Did these women say there is a "problem"? If so, how did they define the "problem"?

I want to know more. Is there some sort of riot, public melee, petition, ballot referendum where agitated single women are having a revolt and demanding all single men become lucrative breadwinners, family leaders, manner uppers and bubbling over with stoicism and fortitude? Is there something going on that I don't know about or is all this a figment of Kay Hymowitz's colorful imagination?

they are confused about their roles in the new economy and society where they are seen as expendable family members. The article and interview seemed geared toward fixing the problem for women, not for men,...

Confusion in a society as rapidly changing as our own is common. It's important to remember that change isn't always a good thing and confusion is often a normal reaction.

Articles like this are almost always geared towards fixing the problem for women. That's all that really matters, isn't it?

No, Dadvocate, not at all. Articles are NOT almost always geared toward fixing any problem for women. These articles are geared to the book-buying masses, who are mainly frumpy middle-class married people who are desperate to hear anything that says they aren't losers. See, read the WSJ article, single women are over-demanding shrews and single men are bums that play too many video games. Married people are the superior class who are doing the right thing.

Dr. Helen, I'm not going to excuse some of the young "dudes" behavior that are sited in this article. However, when you look at the young ladies the dudes are suppose to man up for. I think the young dudes are better off playing video games. When the young dudes do man up and get married. They have the possible wonderful future of heading to divorce court. When a robot replacement for the ladies hits the market. No store will be able to keep them in stock, no matter what the price is. Sadly the male robot will sell out with the ladies too. I thank God I have a great wife. I try to be a great husband. I hope the dudes and dudettes get to experience my life. I certainly don't want to experience their future life.

-Moralists like KH agitate for their bread-and-butter family-values society without ever asking people if they wanted to be shamed for not copping to conformity. I would bet there are more men than women who are comfortable with the non-parent lifestyle, but for a woman like Cham who is (from what she says) just fine with her single- and childless-ness, it stings to read an article that tells her the essence of womanhood is spitting out children.

-Issues like these are always magnified to look larger than just small batches of middle-upper class people with loud angry voices, and book-buyers who want to be told that their lifestyle is the "normal" one and that other people are deviant.

Articles are NOT almost always geared toward fixing any problem for women. These articles are geared to the book-buying masses, who are mainly frumpy middle-class married people who are desperate to hear anything that says they aren't losers.

In the magazine world, these masses are hugely female. At least one would assume that looking at what magazines have the largest circulation. Thus these articles are aimed at making females not feel like losers, usually by blaming men.

Badger probably has a good point that much of this comes from "small batches of middle-upper class people with loud angry voices." I imagine many of them think they should have been wealthier than they are.

While searching for the magazine subscription info, I came across this tidbit about a checklist for "Gender bias in computer software programs: a checklist for teachers." Of course, this is all about helping girls. They note that overall boys do better than girls at using computers. Heaven forbid that boys should out perform girls in any arena. Thus, we have "Selection of software that relates to girls' interests and shows that computers and software are "female/girl friendly" can encourage girls to use computers in a variety of ways, and become confident users of technology." Screw the boys.

I think that Cham makes a good point as well. One of the reasons that the sort of criticism that KH promotes is so evergreen is that it provides a tidy narrative that justifies the anxieties and frustrations of multiple audiences. So she gives them the damaged man child who won't shoulder his responsibilities towards society and is therefore the cause of our current malaise.

One obvious contradiction in her thesis is that if these men are obliged to be pursuing advanced degrees, internships, vertical and lateral career stratagems, and all the rest - how in the hell are they going to find time to settle down and get married in their twenties or even early thirties?? Because that is apparently her sole standard for male maturity. Mature men prepare themselves professionally and financially in their twenties in order to marry young and to commenze mit zee breeeding!

See? I told you that a certain type of modern woman see's men as niggers-in-waiting that just need the correct re-training and updated motivations in order to voluntarily serve a womans needs, which are paramount over male human beings desires for autonomy and happiness.

I used to subscribe to the WSJ. Why? Because it was once filled with information about finances and the economy. There were almost no fluff articles, which is really what interests women whose last eggs haven't dropped. At some point, the powers that be at the WSJ decided that they wanted to appeal to the lucrative vapid-reader (read: women) market in hopes of expanding readership to combat what was happening to all newspapers. They started including pictures, using bigger print, and including stories about spending money and relationship advice. I don't remember what the article was, but I do remember that it was a relationship article that finally drove me to cancel my subscription.

The WSJ's target audience of stupid articles like this is women, as is every other article like this. The women that they're after may be married women, but it's women that they're after. Men aren't reading the sections of newspapers that these articles appear in and, frankly, advertisers - which is really all that newspapers are there for - are starting to care less and less about men as a market.

When a robot replacement for the ladies hits the market. No store will be able to keep them in stock, no matter what the price is.

At this point, it's only a matter of time. Though most of it's only in its infancy, all of the technology required to make a life-like robot already exists. I believe that once someone can figure out how to make a functioning sex robot, the market will take off (unless women's group demand that the government ban sex robots because they don't like competing with permanently-young sex robots (much like how they claimed they were interested in protecting women from third-world countries that wealthy men met through match-making services when, in reality, they were simply interested in punishing men for having the audacity to actually marry a desirable woman)). The key to making robots interchangeable with humans is making them look and act real. The "look" part of the equation is easy from a technical standpoint. It's the "act" part that's going to be problematic. Once some lonely engineer figures out how to make a robot that responds sexually, the sex robot industry will explode and engineers and marketers from other industries will take notice.

Demanding sexless women slit their own throats when they ran the whores out of town. All through human history a man has been able to drop by a whorehouse a couple of times a month for roughly a half a days pay. That would give them the strength to put up with the demanding sexless wife for a couple of weeks.Now men stay with the same women because they know that if they leave, They lose the house,they can't see their kids, they lose the cars, retirement accounts and have to pay the ex every month(even if the wife has plenty of money) or go to jail.It makes no difference if the man loses his job, pay up or go to jail,period. If the woman violates the terms of the divorce, the judge says, "try to do better in the future". Is it any wonder than many men with a bright future and money choose a mistress over a wife?

J. Bowen wrote: Men aren't reading the sections of newspapers that these articles appear in and, frankly, advertisers - which is really all that newspapers are there for - are starting to care less and less about men as a market.

You're absolutely correct and that's because women generally control the lion's share of disposable household income.

However, as more and more young men opt out of marriage and families and have full control over their own incomes, that will change again. It may not happen soon, but it will happen.

The definition for "manning-up" is changing and not in a way that KH and those like her find appealing.

Manning-up today is protecting one's own wealth and worth and the realization that all of that is at great risk in marriage and family today is at the heart of the perception that they're not growing up.

They are grown up... and doing things for themselves more and more. This is upsetting to those who benefit so greatly from the family court cartel system.

I'm a man. I accept my responsibilities without question, and do what I have to do.

I also know how to read a contract. Community property, community funds, sweat equity, presumptive paternity, no fault divorce. No way am I going to agree to that.

If she doesn't like it, I don't care. What does she have to offer me, in exchange for all of the above. Sex?

I already had sex with her. It didn't cost me anything more than dinner and a couple of drinks. Why would I give her 50%--and assume presumptive paternity (which is the real deal killer)--to have sex with her again? It's not like I can't replace her for a tequila shot and a lie to the face.

I resigned from a teaching career that I spent 20 years building to help my mother while my father was dying of cancer. When I told my fiance what I was going to do, she said, "But I have plans."

I looked her right in the eyes and said, "I don't give a fuck about your plans. I have responsibilities."

That did not go over well, and I did not care. Did she really think I could not replace her?

It's not me who needs to grow up. I grew up 40 years ago. It's the modern American girl who needs to grow up.

And Dr. Helen, I am going to offer my opinion where the real catches are in the real women department. When we discuss any positive attributes that a man would look for in a life mate I think there is one group of ladies that may be worth a look at. The women who are serving in our Armed Forces. I have the opportunity to be among ladies who are serving our country quite often. These ladies have most, if not all of the positive gifts that in my opinion would make them a great choice for a wife. That is, if a young man was their equal.

And Dr. Helen, I am going to offer my opinion where the real catches are in the real women department. When we discuss any positive attributes that a man would look for in a life mate I think there is one group of ladies that may be worth a look at. The women who are serving in our Armed Forces.

What are these positive attributes that you're talking about? Overweight? Bitchy? Promiscuous? Classless? Smoker? Disloyal? Attractive? Where are these attractive, sweet, in-shape, supportive, loyal, non-smoking, classy women that you're seeing? They surely aren't among the enlisted crowd. If there is one crowd of women that I stayed away from while I was in it was military women. They were nothing but bad news.

As you've probably noticed, our Armed Forces have been at war for about a decade now.

Without overly belaboring the point, this sort of thing can have a positively Darwinian effect on the quality of our enlistees.

I love our women in uniform; while there are still some of the ones like what you were used to, noawadays they tend a lot more towards the "attractive, sweet, in-shape, supportive, loyal, non-smoking, classy women" ones in which you disbelieve.

And they would absolutely kick Kay Hymowitz's ass all over the parking lot.

TMink: The only group that gives ME hope is Italian chicks from Brooklyn (e.g., Mona Lisa Vito). When I see a woman open her mouth and out pops that Bugs Bunny accent, it's like her boobs jump three cup sizes right in front of my eyes!